Job figures are horrendous but hardly a surprise

This was always an ideological attack on the state and the young are going to have to pay.

The ONS data release on the labour market this morning was horrendous. Unemployment jumped to 8.1 per cent, up 0.4 per cent on the quarter. The total number of unemployed hit 2.57 million, which is the largest quarterly increase since the three months to July 2009. Nearly 900,000 have been unemployed for at least a year and 425,000 for at least two years. The unemployment rate is now in double digits in the north east (11.3 per cent) and in London (10 per cent).

The number of people in employment aged 16 and over fell by 178,000 on the quarter and by 47,000 on the year to reach 29.10 million. This is the largest quarterly fall in the number of people in employment since the three months to July 2009.

The number of people working part-time fell by 175,000 over the quarter to reach 7.78 million. This is the largest quarterly fall in the number of part-time workers since comparable records began in 1992. Inactivity was also up and wage growth remains benign.

Most worrying was the rise in youth unemployment, which is now at 991,000. Next month, it surely will hit the million mark, as the cohort who left schools, colleges and universities fail to find jobs. Plus, of the 17,000 increase in the claimant count, 9,900 was among 18-to-24-year-olds.

The youth unemployment rate was 21.3 per cent over the three months between June and August 2011, an increase of 1.6 per cent on the previous quarter. Worst of all, a quarter of a million youngsters under the age of 25 have been unemployed for at least a year. Long spells of unemployment while young can create permanent scars.

The rise in youth unemployment is hardly a surprise, given the government abolished the Future Jobs Fund and the Educational Maintenance Allowance and reduced the number of university places. This coalition appears to be dead set on creating a lost generation. I first started warning that this was coming in 2009 and the Labour government responded and successfully got youth unemployment down, so the blame for the rise rests entirely at the coalition's door.

Interestingly, the ONS also reports an alternative measure of youth unemployment. This measure, which was introduced in its April 2011 data release, measures the youth unemployment rate "excluding people in full-time education". According to this measure, there were 721,000 unemployed 16-to-24-year-olds between June and August 2011.

This alternative measure of youth unemployment was introduced by ONS back in Spring 2011 in response to pressure from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, who argued that this was the most appropriate measure to focus on. Youth unemployment among 16-to-24-year-olds increased by 74,000; the number of unemployed who were not in full-time education increased by 78,000.

Yes, that's right; it increased by 78,000. Unsurprisingly, we have heard little on this measure today.

In response, the Employment Minister, Chris Grayling, said:

It is clear that we are seeing the effect of the international economic crisis on the UK labour market. That's why, last week, we announced the right-to-buy housing scheme to support growth and today we are offering more support for jobseekers as sector-based work academies come on stream, combining real training, work experience and a guaranteed interview. Our new work programme is now up and running and offers people who have lost their jobs flexible, tailored support to get back into jobs and stay there.

I guess Grayling has to blame somebody but his comments are not credible. Unemployment is rising because of the government's failed austerity programme, plus a front-loaded public-sector job cull. Take responsibility -- tailored support doesn't work when there aren't any jobs. Guaranteed interviews will not work when, according to your data, there are 2.5 million unemployed and only 500,000 vacancies.

The work programme is already an expensive failure because there is insufficient demand in the economy, simple as that. Feeble excuses don't wash.

This inept coalition has no strategy for jobs or growth and its austerity plan is lowering growth fast and destroying jobs, as I have been warning for a while. This is as good as it gets, because unemployment is expected to rise inexorably from here for many more months and, based on current policies, it is hard to see where it stops.

George Osborne and his team believed in expansionary fiscal contractions, which mean that cuts in public spending allow the private sector to blossom. There was no believable empirical evidence to support such a contention and it hasn't worked.

I understand from my sources that cabinet members are close to panic as they have no idea what to do now -- the slowing economy has taken them entirely by surprise.

This was always an ideological attack on the state and the young are the ones who are going to have to pay.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.